Saturday, January 16, 2010


If you want to represent Massachusetts, there are certain things you need to know. One of the biggest things: the Red Sox are a very, very big deal. And if you want to have any credibility with Red Sox fans, it's helpful to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the team's history.

In recent Red Sox history, few players have a larger role than pitcher Curt Schilling. He became most famous for the "bloody sock" game, when he pitched through injury against the hated Yankees to win Game 6 of the American League Championship Series in 2004. He won that game and the Red Sox went on to win their first World Series since 1918. It's the stuff of legend throughout New England.

As it happens, the now-retired Schilling is an outspoken fellow and has thrown his support to Scott Brown, the Republican who is challenging Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts. As Ben Smith notes in Politico, the topic of Schilling came up in a radio interview with Coakley. Here's the (ahem) play-by-play:

In the intensifying Democratic precriminations game over who to blame if Coakley loses, here's one for the blame Coakley camp: On another talk radio show, "Nightside With Dan Rea," Coakley jabs Rudy Giuliani as a Yankee fan, then goes on to describe Brown supporter Curt Schilling, the great former Red Sox pitcher, as a Yankee fan as well.

The host sounds incredulous -- "Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?" -- and Coakley initially sounds unfamiliar with him. She eventually reverses herself, but it's an odd moment in a state that was transfixed by Schilling's performance in the 2004 World Series, where he helped the Red Sox win for the first time since 1918.

Smith has audio at the link so you can hear it for yourself. No matter what you think of the Red Sox generally or of Curt Schilling in particular, this is cosmically dumb stuff. You have to wonder: the state of Massachusetts is full of liberals and has a huge roster of liberal politicians. How did someone as oblivious as Martha Coakley end up being the standard-bearer of the party?


my name is Amanda said...

It's kind of pathetic that people would think this is anything newsworthy. Who cares whether she knows who Curt Schilling is? Nobody who was already planning to vote Democrat cares. And it's too early for this to sway the mind of an independent; believe me, they aren't paying attention yet.

The Rev. Mother said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
W.B. Picklesworth said...

Um, the election is on Monday.

And you are aware that Coakley, the Democrat candidate has now fallen behind in the polls, right? In Massachusetts, a state with three times more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Mr. D said...


Speaking of facepalms -- the election is Tuesday. I wouldn't be writing about it if it weren't.

Coakley's not knowing who Schilling wouldn't be that important if it were the only thing she's apparently clueless about. But there's more. Much, much, more.

Brad Carlson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad Carlson said...

Hey, Massachusetts residents are NUTS about their Red Sox and have an utter disdain for the Yankees. Don't be shocked if some voters go against Coakley for such a gaffe. Superficial? Of course. But many Americans voted for Obama based on a myriad of superficial reasons.

Brad Carlson said...

believe me, they aren't paying attention yet.

Neither are you apparently.

Gino said...

electoral politics is based on stuff that really doesnt matter.
its sad, but true.

and is why Palin as a hunter and shooter made her attractive in my eyes,
and why obama being black and harvard did him so well,
or kerry kept talking about his war record, while gore couldnt wait to get out there and shoot a shotgun before the cameras.

neither of these matter in terms of how they would really govern.
but they are links of familiarity that voters can connect with.

and voters are often rather stupid and fall for this stuff.

and that equals votes.

Bike Bubba said...

Amanda, this is actually huge; while at face value, it may seem superficial, it shows her to be someone that has absolutely no clue about the people she desires to represent.

Now, do you want someone whose powers of observation are so poor in the Senate? When her screw ups could cost trillions of dollars, or perhaps even millions of lives?

It would be like putting a former community organizer into the Senate, or God forbid into the White House.